Sovereignty isn’t like money

This is a very readable, cogent analysis of the challenges of democratizing capitalism. While I agree with the spirit of this posting, I think it conflates the process, the result of which we call “sovereignty,” with the fungibility of money, which is the hallmark of capital, the ability to transform an asset from one purpose to the other, regardless of the consent of all parties — A and B may agree, but C, owed money by B, may put that money to any use they want. Sovereignty, on the other hand, is a process that results in compromise without any reference to the specific power of the individuals involved, except their ability to deploy capital. The genius of capitalism is the fungibility of capital, which can be directed purposefully. But it lacks the deliberation between perspectives and equitable distribution of power that Democracy requires, so the analogy fails once you dig into it.

The VRM mailing list I originally posted this comment produced a reply that allowed me to expand on why the sovereignty-fungibility comparison is flawed.

Mitch,
By having a system of money (capital) that is built on the “word” of each individual or their sovereignty we distribute economic power. That is exactly the point of each of us having the ability to create our own IOUs (money, capital, credit).
Kevin

It’s not a misunderstanding, but a disagreement. What you are describing is a system in which Tom Kleiner’s vision of democracy – “one dollar, one vote” – becomes a reality because the underlying sovereignty-fungibility comparison is flawed. By trading fungibility for sovereignty, we end up with a system in which economic power becomes one with the ability to marshal political power. I think that the evidence for my perspective in the clear in the Koch Brothers’ approach to social media and advertising. They flood the medium with self-reinforcing messages, a “paramedia” takes up amplifying their messages. The Koch Brothers treat social capital, as expressed through the mechanism of “votes,” as a commodity to increase the reach of their messages.

I think you are well intended, but that the aim is off, based on a flawed sovereign-fungibility construct that results in no distinction between doing business and doing politics. I envision a democracy where there is no connection between money and politics, though I am quite aware we are unlikely to get there.

Capital knows your ju-jitsu and will throw you flat on your back if you give them a mechanism like an IOU representing a share of the collective will expressed through democracy.

I welcome a counter-analysis, but will not engage in ideological debates.